posted
Does a person have a right to sell their own organs? And I'm not talking about something you could play a Bach fugue on. I'm most interested in reasoning based on rights and values.
Should people be allowed to sell their own vital organs (heart, liver, etc.)?
Should people be allowed to sell their own non-vital organs (one kidney, eye(s), etc.)?
Should organ donors be allowed to specify a person or group of people who may receive their organs? or a person or group of people who may not receive their organs?
Could a government morally force someone to give up a non-vital organ to someone else?
Could a government morally force someone to give up a vital organ to someone else?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course a government can't morally FORCE anyone to give up an organ, especially not a vital one. The government isn't God, it doesn't choose who lives and who dies, at least, not that directly.
I almost want to say yes, that people should be allowed to sell their organs. But I know that it would cause more harm than good. The organ market would become a black mark. The poor would be literally selling themselves to feed their families, and though this already happens in some parts of the world, people would be jumped and find their liver missing in the morning.
Creating a legal trade market for organs in the United States would be a horrible idea.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We had this discussion in business ethics last week.
I kind of think they should. I mean really, there's already a black market for organs. Making it legal would probably reduce that market. On top of that, it would make more organs available, which would be a big plus.
I did specify "their own" vital organs. I was envisioning something like a contract being drawn up, and both parties using a licensed surgeon. I'm not advocating it, I'm just interested in people's opinions and especially their reasoning.
pH, what about specifying classes of people who couldn't receive their organs (i.e. no black people, no gay people, not my Uncle Murray)? Does the right to sell imply the right to discriminate?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
You're talking about a best case scenario. Documents can be easily forged, and while there is a black market for organs, it isn't readily accessible INSIDE the United States. People generally have the leave the country for sort of illegal surgery like that. Once the culture of organ trading is established inside the US, the guidelines, such as it being their own organs versus someone else's will become muddled.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in Ethics Bowl, which is like debate for philosophy nerds, and this topic comes up a lot in our cases.
From an economic standpoint, allowing the selling of organs will increase the number of organs on the market, perhaps by a dramatic amount. People who wouldn't have been willing to donate a kidney out of the kindness of their heart might be willing to if they get twenty or thirty grand out of it.
From an ethical standpoint, the situation gets a bit murkier. There's been a recent trend of rich people traveling to China to get organs - since about 1/3 of all laws in China have capital punishment as the penalty for breaking them, China has a LOT of extra organs. They execute people with a shot to the head, actually, in order to have viable organs, and, of course, they'll take the organs from dead prisoners without consent.
A number of European countries practice a form of routine salvaging - basically, upon death your organs will be salvaged and donated, unless you opt out. I think this policy is a pretty good one - it increases the number of organs available, while allowing those who disagree with organ donation for religious or other reasons to keep their organs.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Should people be allowed to sell their own vital organs (heart, liver, etc.)?
Sell, no. Give, yes.
quote:Should people be allowed to sell their own non-vital organs (one kidney, eye(s), etc.)?
See above.
quote:Should organ donors be allowed to specify a person or group of people who may receive their organs? or a person or group of people who may not receive their organs?
No. While, it might be nice to say no Aggies or no Republicans or something, I still think it would be wrong. The most deserving people should be the ones with the most need, not the group of people you like better.
quote: Could a government morally force someone to give up a non-vital organ to someone else?
Not while you are alive obviously. I do think that the government should have the right to donate organs of deceased prisoners if they are viable. I feel that criminals lose the right to choose when they break the law. I know I will get slammed for that view but there it is.
quote: Could a government morally force someone to give up a vital organ to someone else?
See above.
I am a big proponent of organ donation. I know how it can save lives. But I still believe it has to be a voluntary thing. No one should force citizens of our country to give up organs if they do not wish to (except in the case above since they are no longer productive citizens). There are certainly religious reasons why one would not want his or her body mutilated and scavenged after death but my view is that God will restore my body as He sees fit when the time comes. In the meantime, if I can save a few lives or make a few lives easier and more productive, I will.
Here is another question that was posed to me in the discussion of organ donation once years ago. If a paramedic or doctor sees that you are an organ donor, will they still try as hard to save you, knowing how much people need your organs?
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr, wouldn't taking someone elses organs be stealing? Heck, it could be argued it's kidnapping (How large a chunk of someone do you have to take before it's kidnapping?)
And if they die, of course, it's murder.
So you're arguing we shouldn't make an activity illegal because it MIGHT lead to another activity that is, should be and will remain illegal.
Sorta like saying "if we allow cars someone might use it to run someone over."
The idea of someone selling their organs is repugnant to me. But then, I'm not on the waiting list to receive any sort of organ. I think if I was the idea of shelling out 100K for a kidney wouldn't seem so bad. And someone $100,000 richer but with only 1 kidney wouldn't seem as sad.
And all sorts of things that I find disgusting are legal and should remain so.
Ultimately, you can't protect people from their bad choices or they're not really free.
However, changing our system perhaps to something closer to Europe's, where everyone is a donor unless they opt out, would create a larger influx of new donor organs, and wouldn't create the horrible side effects.
But this isn't just self destructive choices, it's choices that can harm a great many people. Smoking kills the smoker, so long as they don't do it around me, I won't rail against smoking, but when they DO do it around me, I have a big problem with it.
I'm arguing that we shouldn't legalize an already illegal activity because there is a VERY STRONG LIKELIHOOD that it will precipitate a swell in other illegal activities.
Maybe, MAYBE, I'd be willing to make an exception for kidneys, but I doubt it. Once the door is open there's no closing it again, and no way of stopping it from being opened further and further.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Way back in the day I had this discussion in an economics class.
The professor started out by saying we do not own our bodies. We talked about how ownership is:
quote:1: Possession with the right to transfer possession to others 2: the act of having and controlling property.
Since it is illegal to sell our organs, our bodies (prostitution), or commit suicide, there is a case to be made that the government owns us.
That bothers me. Because I believe people should be autonomous and my political convictions lean towards "social libertarian / fiscal conservative," I think all of the above should be legal.
However, if a market is created for organs, then I could see an increase in organ harvesting of unwilling participants. That is a big enough threat in my mind to make me reconsider whether selling organs should be legal. I have not reached a firm conclusion.
The black market may go down, but the legitimate market may have organs funneled into it through dubious means. I think the poor and illegal aliens would be at greatest risk.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Is it fair that, because you are richer than me, you have a better shot at having your life saved? Right now the U.S. system (as I understand it) values fair distribution over pretty much everything else. Should "fairness" play a role in organ donation <edit> and hypothetical sales </edit>?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since it is illegal to sell our organs, our bodies (prostitution), or commit suicide, there is a case to be made that the government owns us.
This doesn't follow from the definition above. The government hasn't maintained the right to transfer possession to others. Therefore, it does no own us.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like "Opt Out" situations as a rule. You get too many situations of "I never agreed to that!" (of course, in this case it's hard to object when you're dead.)
I wish everyone would just be a donor anyway. I'm a donor. I've told my hubby that if I'm killed to make sure they deal me out like a deck of cards.
But I think they need to make a conscious choice to become one rather than have the state make that choice for them. Even if the state backs off the second you clear your throat to object.
And I do understand your argument. It would be horrible to wake up missing an eye. It would be worse to wake up dead with all my insides missing. But I just don't think that would happen enough to overcome the good that would come out of more people donating/selling. I don't think it would happen enough to take the choice away from people. And I think, when it did happen, justice would prevail more often than not.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [QUOTE]The government hasn't maintained the right to transfer possession to others.
<warning, I'm about to make a glib comment on a subject I know very little about; it's not meant particularly seriously, and hope it isn't taken as such> Unless, of course, you're a suspected terrorist being given over to foreign powers for interrogation.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it fair that, because you are richer than me, you have a better shot at having your life saved?
This should be asked as two questions:
1.) Is it fair if a rich person's ability to buy an organ reduces the ability of a poorer person to buy an organ?
2.) Is it fair if a rich person has the ability to avail himself of an opportunity to acquire an organ which would not exist if organs could not be sold?
If more people will donate organs under an organ-sale plan, then question 2 comes into play. And it could be rephrased as "Is it fair that the rich person not be allowed to avail themself of an opportunity that would not be available to anyone if organs could not be sold."
I have no answer to either question, but I think framing the questions in this way (and probably other ways) is necessary to full explore the ethical implications.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
PeterJones: So instead of saving more rich people we should let them die at the same rate as the poor?
I kind of assumed Insurance would cover it. (which of course, will boost the cost of insurance for all... *sigh*)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: PeterJones: So instead of saving more rich people we should let them die at the same rate as the poor?
I kind of assumed Insurance would cover it. (which of course, will boost the cost of insurance for all... *sigh*)
Isn't saying insurance will cover it saying exactly that rich will continue to die at the same rate as the poor (just a decreased one)?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Pixie (and pH)-
Is it fair that, because you are richer than me, you have a better shot at having your life saved? Right now the U.S. system (as I understand it) values fair distribution over pretty much everything else. Should "fairness" play a role in organ donation <edit> and hypothetical sales </edit>?
The system isn't "fair" now. Pretty much, there's a committee that decides who gets what, and since everyone on the committee has their own criteria, there's no way to predict how such things will be decided.
posted
That's my point, Peter. A decreased rate. If it's for the rich, fine. If it's for all, even better. But a decreased rate of death is good right? Especially with an increase in freedom.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, were organs to become commercially available, they wouldn't just be for the rich. Supply and demand. There are likely to be far more willing sellers than buyers.
Someone might say they'll sell their kidney for 60K, and for awhile all the rich folk will buy kidneys for 60K, until they don't need them, and no one can sell them for that anymore, then the price drops dramatically until the average joe can afford a kidney.
As a side though, has any one thought about how this will effect donating organs? Why would anyone donate their organs when they die, when their family can instead sell those organs and turn a tidy profit? It'd be like everyone has built in life insurance.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya, that crossed my mind, Lyrhawn. As did the prospect of Patricide for Profit. *shudder* (That's something that should warrent the death penalty.)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I had my license renewed a little while ago, and for the first time I said I was a organ donor. I told my husband and he started talking about how only the rich would get the organs, and the poor never would.
His reasoning is that if you need an organ transplant, the hospital isn't going to do it for free. You have to have insurance or the money to pay for the operation. So the poor can't afford it.
I never thought of it like that before. Is it true? I know that the ER only has to try to keep you alive if you can't pay, they don't have to actually give you long term treatment for whatever illness you have. So doesn't it follow that if you need a transplant, good luck getting one..
posted
In this case, I'm thinking yes. Because the opposite of that is, if I donate, my parts will NOT go to the uninsured.
I'm thinking of adding some sort of revision to my license. I'll donate if the organs go to an uninsured person.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I have health insurance that I still get (until I'm 23) from my mom's work, which would entitle me to a transplant. But otherwise, our household consists of two live at home college students and one working mother making less than 35K a year. I don't classify that as rich, at least not in American economics.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I wouldn't think to limit it that way, thank you. You're being nasty to me, but they're my organs and I can do with them what I like. My problem is NOT that an insured or rich person might get my organs. My problem is that an uninsured person who needs my organs MORE than that insured/rich person wouldn't get them because they don't have money. If the system were fair, then all I care about is that the people who need them most get them. Without regard to money or status.
The article does make me feel a little better, as there are organizations that do allow uninsured people on the organ donation lists, but not nearly enough. I think it's clear that the problem is a greater one than just an organ donation problem--it's a problem with the health care system in general. I don't know how to fix it, but I'm not so sure that I want to participate in such a flawed and unbalanced system.
I have insurance. It shames me that should I need an organ transplant, I may very well get one from an uninsured person who would not have been allowed to receive an organ at all if they needed one.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I was going to make the same point, although much less forcefully. Maybe you're really angry, but your posts seem to be overly aggressive and accusatory. Not that I'm trying to be Papa Janitor, but I just don't want the thread to devolve into a shouting match about hurt feelings.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is interesting that we are generally horrified that rich people would have more access to organs than poor people. Rich people have more access to everything than poor people. How is being able to buy a life saving liver different than buying other life saving medical care and drugs? Rich people have more access to those? I'm not saying that there isn't a difference, I'm just not sure where it lies.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I can understand your getting angry. As I tried to explain, what I really want is for the system to change. I don't like the value of someone's life being determined by how much money or insurance they have. To me, this is enough for me to want to take a stand and refuse to participate, in the, perhaps misguided, hope that my refusal will make a difference in spurring enough people to action to change the system. I understand that for you, saving lives in the meantime is enough of a motivation to work through the flawed system, even if that means that the truly needy are overlooked. That is a good position to take, and sometimes I want to take it as well.
But I, too, am angry. I'm angry that more people don't care that the uninsured can be donators but not receivers. I don't think it's right to just shrug that off.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: You're right, Peter. I deleted my angry comment.
Thanks, Pix.
And, while my name is Peter, it's somewhat jarring to see it here. Most people shorten my screenname to Senoj (although you're welcome to continue calling me Peter, if you want).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like to think, that in an "Organ Economy" that those who sell would sell to the insured, and the donated organs would go to the uninsured. (You know, assuming tissue matches and the like.)
Like the way currently insured people pay extra in hospitals so they (hospitals) can treat the poor and support the lawsuit industry.
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I don't like the value of someone's life being determined by how much money or insurance they have.
But can you see how you claiming you'd only donate to the uninsured looks exactly like that to others? You valuing someone's life more specifically because they don't have much money or insurance? I completely understand you're desire to make the system more fair, but your method appears to directly conflict with that goal. Much like affirmative action is a racist policy that tries to end racial discrimination.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm valuing someone's life because their life hasn't been valued by the system. They have been overlooked and uncared for because of their lack of money or insurance. So no, I don't agree that that's what I'm doing.
In all reality, if I had a revision that said I'd only donate to the uninsured, they simply wouldn't take my organs. As far as I know, they don't take conditions like that into consideration from the donor, so I would be disqualified. So I know it wouldn't work.
But that's not the point.
If I donate, I want my organs to go to the most medically needy. Not the most medically needy who was privileged enough to go on the list. I want ALL of the people needing transplants to be on that list. No matter if they can pay or not. So saying that I won't donate to such a system is valid. Let them make a new list with everyone who needs an organ on it. Then I don't care if Bill Gates himself gets my organs. At least then it would value human life equally.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: This doesn't follow from the definition above. The government hasn't maintained the right to transfer possession to others. Therefore, it does no own us.
Good point. I wish I would have thought of that in the class. But the first part of my contention is still valid. I do not own my body. There are certain things I am not allowed to do to my body. I lean towards letting people have the finale say in what they do to their body--if it doesn't hurt another individual.
The same could be said of most things. *off to ponder some more*
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Sure, they'd be willing to sell to the uninsured, but could the uninsured afford it? And more so, could they afford the surgery that goes with it?
Something else that has to be considered is malpractice suits. How many hundreds of suits do you think will come from angry organ buyers when their bodies reject their organs or they fail somehow? Doctors will inevitably bear the brunt of the the backlash, not the sellers. Doctors might refuse to perform transplants, or only do so with extremely worded medical liability waivers, ones that some might not want to sign. This endangers the entire system of organ donation and transplant currently at work in the country.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
